Yea,we all know her.
Sitting on the bus near you.
The guy next door's wife.
Your best friend's wife.
Bekitzur,everyone's wife but yours.

Hashem commands us:
Do not desire her!

Um,sorry?
I'd understand if You would tell me
"Don't have sex with her!"
But not to lust?
How can we be commanded something that is seemingly out of our control mostly?!

So I ask you the following:
Would you like to buy a nice porsche and drive cross-country?
Yea?
Nice.
Would you like to buy a nice spaceship and circle the moon a few times?
No?
Why not?
I'm sure it would be fun.

The answer is no.
Because it's not shayach.
It's not happening.
It's out of our reach.
The first bracha under the chupa is:
"Who forbade us the betrothed,and permitted the married(the one that you're married to)."
Why?
Because first we must understand that any other women are not shayach.
We must get that into our heads.
It is not happening.
It's like that spaceship.
This is the yesod of the Ibn Ezra.

When I spoke to my sex addiction therapist about this,he pointed out the following:
Think about any wife who would think of cheating on her husband.
Think of how difficult their relationship must be.
And you would go in there and destroy a family even more?
We do not want to enter this sugya,chevra.
Even "just looking"
Any wife who dresses provocatively we must feel bad for.
She's obviously not being shown enough love at home.
We must daven for them.
Not watch them as they walk.
See the other side of the story chevra.

Even pornstars.
What brought them to this place.
Oy!
I feel like crying  :'(

very powerful indeed

uri wow!!

I'm not sure; I don't think the Yesod is "yeah, she really is a lot more then what you've got, but stinks for you, she's not shayach". I'm not sure if that works. I think there's another mehalach - which I'm working through myself - of appreciating and understanding what intimacy is really about and what defines real satisfaction.

Yea it's all part and parcel of the same idea.
G-d gave us this woman to have a real intimate relationship with.
He does not want us running to these fake options.
So He says:
Not Happening!

I think there are two ideas here. 1. Uri's That a woman who we are not married to is something beyond our realm. Most people(see below) don't want things that are impossible. We are only looking at woman because in some way we think it is possible to have some kind connection to her.

2. Kaneshar's That we need to stop seeing woman as purely objects of lust and desire but rather as people who we can have a deep and meaningful relationship with.

Regarding Uri's point I don't know if that applies to us addicts. We don't think logically about lust. If we did we would not be here. Also we where taught by Hollywood, at a very young age, that anyone can marry a princess. She might just fall in love with you. I think in the long run  Kaneasher's thought is more helpful. We need to change how we look at woman in general, not only how we think about John's wife.

Uri’s point is very valid in the case he brought up.

If you sit in the bus next to her, turning your gaze away may not be sufficient as she may get up soon to go down or someone else will be sitting on the other side. The only option would be to start deflating your balloon. Once you realise that they are not shayech you won’t have a problem with a busload full. In the future it will be easier for you to link up to those thoughts once you have done it before.

G38 wrote on 01 Oct 2009 11:38:


I don't get the whole thing. She's nice to look at, even though you have zero chance of getting anywhere near her. The looking itself, the fantasizing itself - with all that accompanies it, is itself a pleasure that you can take from her. That IS shayach.

kanesher wrote on 01 Oct 2009 13:33:


Kanesher,
Your question is very good. Real.

Here's my take:

We fantasize about things that we envision ourselves in. We wish for.

1) I'd like that
2) let me dream about it.

If our father was an astronaut, we might be fantasizing about space travel. and we would enjoy the fantasy, maybe.

But the rest of us don't.

We would feel silly doing it.

Thats the key.

We have to realize that part 1) above is silly. She is not mean for me. I'm making a fool out of my self for wanting it.

Its the old mashul of the Even Ezra that a peasant does not lust after a princess.
Today, you tell it to people and they ask... hey, why not?

but that's because of our matzav today.

In the happy days of old, the peasant knew what a peasant is and what a princess is. It was ridiculous, in his mind, to make the shiduch.
So, he did not lust after it either.
It would simply be silly.

The following may sound weird, but consider it:
ever watched a bee buzzing around flowers. Going from flower to flower and sucking out the necter, with energy and gusto?
I bet the bee is enjoying it tremendously.
Ever consider fantasizing about it? I mean, envision buzzing through the air, and encountering this big bright sunflower, with a overpowering sweet aroma, copulant nectar dripping from the pistels, glistening in the sunlight.
You get  closer, and the scent gets ever stronger....

silly, no?

kutan

kanesher here is  a simple thought

(yet many people in our forum use it effectively )

picture youself in a packed bus or room with many people

someones cellphone rings with a unique "ringtone"

it catches you attention for a millisecon and the you forgetaboutit ,why? its stimulating? it's a nice tone/ yes yes but its not my phone

say yes she is drop dead bombshell gorgeous but she is a "ringtone" to some one elses phone!!

it works!

b

Kanesher

If I am not mistaken you are a lady.

For a man the Nisoyen never stops by looking, plus that looking itself is a result of lust which can be prevented.

G38 wrote on 01 Oct 2009 15:03:


o man
i am getting the heck out of here!

G38 wrote on 01 Oct 2009 15:03:


Being an expert at eagles (vultures), I'm pretty sure Kanesher is male.

(Sorry, but there is a good chance that a nesher is really a vulture, rather than an eagle).

k

Uri wrote on 01 Oct 2009 15:56:


To with me... what can I do for you...


Nope. It does not sound right.

Put the heck back in

Hold on, who was it who had a little lam, he?

Did she come in with you? >

kutan shel hachabura wrote on 01 Oct 2009 16:00:

:D